Tag Archives: NFL

Are you ready for some (subsidized) football?

This weekend marks the start of the NFL season, and with it comes the fanfare and attention that being the most lucrative professional sport in America has come to demand.  However, this success has fueled the lucrative stadium financing deals that have been secured by these teams over the past 20 years, often at the expense of taxpayers.

Olympic Stadium London - Anniversary (Blended)Take, for example, the stadium deal given to the Cincinnati Bengals by Hamilton County in Ohio. Still the most lucrative subsidy in the history of professional football, taxpayers were left paying 94 percent of the $449.8 million tab. This amount doesn’t include other costs in the generous lease, such as the agreement by the county to cover all of the costs of operation and capital improvements. The lease also leaves taxpayers on the hook to fund projects that have not even been invented yet, such things as “ticketless entry systems,” “stadium self-cleaning machines,” and even “holographic replay machines.”

The Cincinnati Bengals are certainly not alone in getting these sorts of publicly-funded gifts. The Buffalo Bills recently obtained $95 million in subsidies for stadium upgrades.  In return, the state of New York will be given a luxury suite to promote the sorts of corporate handouts that the state can give to other businesses.  Meanwhile, the Atlanta Falcons will receive $200 million from the city of Atlanta toward a new stadium, funded through bonds backed by the city’s hotel-motel tax.  The Kansas City Chiefs and the Carolina Panthers have also recently received generous taxpayer-funded stadium deals.  The list goes on.  Nearly every NFL stadium built since 1997 has received some public funding.

And what do these deals really do to promote economic development?  Almost nothing.  According to economists Robert Baade and Victor Matheson, researchers looking into the economic impact of new sports facilities “have almost invariably found little or no economic benefits.”  This should come as no surprise to economists and policymakers.  Dennis Coates and Brad Humphreys have surveyed the literature and found “a great deal of consistency among economists doing research in this area. That . . . sports subsidies cannot be justified on the grounds of local economic development, income growth or job creation.”

Why, then, do politicians continue to hand out these privileges at the taxpayers’ expense? One answer is that these sports teams are well-connected and well-organized, giving them an inherent lobbying advantage over a multitude of unorganized taxpayers.  For example, the owner of the Miami Dolphins has created an active political group to attack lawmakers he blames for a failed measure to provide taxpayer support for a $350 million upgrade to Sun Life Stadium.

Another possible explanation is that people love their hometown teams, and most politicians are eager to associate themselves with anything that appears popular.  Even if that means giving these teams handouts at the taxpayers’ expense.

So as the football season begins and continues to play out over the next 6 months, you ought to take some time to enjoy your hometown team.  Odds are, you are already paying for it.

The Super Bowl as Economic Remedy

It seems obvious that when a city is chosen to host a major event — political convention, Super Bowl, Olympics — this provides a natural economic boost to the city’s economy. If any city is deserving of such a boost it is New Orleans, which will be hosting the 2013 Super Bowl for the first time since Hurricane Katrina. (It will be the 10th time the city has been the site of the championship.)

And like many governments that find themselves chosen for a major sporting event, the Louisiana legislature is deciding if it should spend $85 million in Superdome upgrades. However, the boost is largely symbolic: while New Orleanians may feel a sense of pride over the selection, and the stadium will get another make over, economic gains are very likely to be fleeting and possibly negative.

Much academic work has been done assessing the impact of sporting events on regional economies. The findings generally show little lasting impact on host cities. Robert Baade finds the primary beneficiaries of taxpayer subsidies for stadiums are team owners, and players, not local residents.

That has not stopped cities from competing for the honor. 

University of Maryland economist Dennis Coates, writing in The American, finds since 1990 Major League Baseball has opened 19 new stadiums, the NFL opened 17, and the NBA over 20. These projects are highly subsidized on the federal, state and local levels, with the public bearing as much as 63 percent of the cost.  Coates and fellow economist Brad Humphreys find in an analysis of  of wages between 1969 and the 1990s in metro areas where these stadiums reside is that incomes actually decreased.

Why? Consumer spending on sports replaces consumption of other kinds of entertainment, and the spending patrons undertake has a relatively small multiplier effect in real the local economy. Athletes get the income boost. And to top it off, increased local subsidies to the franchise redirect tax revenues from other use, making the local economy less efficient.

While local and state governments might like to think otherwise, being chosen as a host city may be as much an economic drain as a publicity boon.